Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Munster vs Connacht, Fri 5th March 7:35pm, Eir Sport 1

Options
1234568»

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,076 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    I thought the Wooton penalty on carbery was utterly ridiculous to be honest.

    Carbery is almost prone on the ground as he decides to drop before he tackle.

    Wootons arms never come up higher than his waist.

    If that was a defender tackling a guy trying to dive over the line for a try it's never a pen, and shouldn't be just because the ball carrier is in his one 5 meter zone


  • Options
    #213
    Cookiemunster
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,847 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    I thought the Wooton penalty on carbery was utterly ridiculous to be honest.

    Carbery is almost prone on the ground as he decides to drop before he tackle.

    Wootons arms never come up higher than his waist.

    If that was a defender tackling a guy trying to dive over the line for a try it's never a pen, and shouldn't be just because the ball carrier is in his one 5 meter zone
    The thing is though, that you can't touch another players head under any circumstances anymore. That's simply the way the game is gone.


  • Options
    #214
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,076 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Cookiemunster wrote: »
    The thing is though, that you can't touch another players head under any circumstances anymore. That's simply the way the game is gone.

    I know the point, however I think refs need to be braver and realise that sometimes the action of the ball carrier causes the contact, not the actions of the tackler.

    I'm not saying carbery bought the pen, but there needs to be an understanding that if a ball carrier brings himself head first down to the shins of a tackler, the only way to tackle with arms (as is the requirement) is to the head area.

    Said this plenty of times before but Its anathema to me that someone can get pinged for a high tackle when their arms are not about their waist.


  • Options
    #215
    Bazzo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    A game finished 24-24 Connacht with a late try and missed conversion to level


  • Options
    #216
    FACECUTTR
    Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭FACECUTTR


    Those Craggy rugby guys are great. The podcast is fantastic too for anybody interested.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Shelflife
    Registered Users Posts: 3,073 ✭✭✭Shelflife


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    I thought the Wooton penalty on carbery was utterly ridiculous to be honest.

    Carbery is almost prone on the ground as he decides to drop before he tackle.

    Wootons arms never come up higher than his waist.

    If that was a defender tackling a guy trying to dive over the line for a try it's never a pen, and shouldn't be just because the ball carrier is in his one 5 meter zone
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    I know the point, however I think refs need to be braver and realise that sometimes the action of the ball carrier causes the contact, not the actions of the tackler.

    I'm not saying carbery bought the pen, but there needs to be an understanding that if a ball carrier brings himself head first down to the shins of a tackler, the only way to tackle with arms (as is the requirement) is to the head area.

    Said this plenty of times before but Its anathema to me that someone can get pinged for a high tackle when their arms are not about their waist.

    I understand where ye are coming from and it can be frustrating for players and officials alike.

    Simply put, any contact with the head is a high tackle and is at minimum a pen, I agree that there wasnt much that Wooton could do apart from not not tackle him.

    Basically if you cant execute a tackle safely then you shouldnt execute a tackle, if you allowed tackles like those to go unpunished you would find players putting in a cheap shot on the basis that their arms were below the waist.


  • Options
    #218
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,076 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Shelflife wrote: »
    I understand where ye are coming from and it can be frustrating for players and officials alike.

    Simply put, any contact with the head is a high tackle and is at minimum a pen, I agree that there wasnt much that Wooton could do apart from not not tackle him.

    Basically if you cant execute a tackle safely then you shouldnt execute a tackle, if you allowed tackles like those to go unpunished you would find players putting in a cheap shot on the basis that their arms were below the waist.

    Nah, a forceful arm to the head is a strike, and a completely different penalty. I've no issue at all with that.

    It can't be any contact to the head. Cloete didn't get pinged for his contact with carty. The Glasgow 6 today made head to head contact with the zebre 9 which lead to both players going off injured, and no penalty. The TMO checked both these incidents.... So it's not "every contact to the head is a penalty"

    I have an issue with a ball carrier leading with the head being allowed to make gains without being tackled. That's encouraging dangerous play, or encouraging the buying of penalties. Like I said already, it was carbery that caused the contact to the head with Wooton last night, not the other way round.

    Just watching zebre Glasgow here and I'd say 50% of pick and goes within the 5 meter are defended by means which includes contact to the head.


  • Options
    #219
    gally74
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭gally74


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Nah, a forceful arm to the head is a strike, and a completely different penalty. I've no issue at all with that.

    It can't be any contact to the head. Cloete didn't get pinged for his contact with carty. The Glasgow 6 today made head to head contact with the zebre 9 which lead to both players going off injured, and no penalty. The TMO checked both these incidents.... So it's not "every contact to the head is a penalty"

    I have an issue with a ball carrier leading with the head being allowed to make gains without being tackled. That's encouraging dangerous play, or encouraging the buying of penalties. Like I said already, it was carbery that caused the contact to the head with Wooton last night, not the other way round.

    Just watching zebre Glasgow here and I'd say 50% of pick and goes within the 5 meter are defended by means which includes contact to the head.

    i reckon its the next area of focus, the stuff inside 5 meters is more like reated NFL scrummages.... there's no way there is not head contact.

    If the law changes there it would open up the game, and probalby take away 50% of munster tries, I dotn like that part of the game,


  • Options
    #220
    ElisaAtWar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭ElisaAtWar


    If I were a Munster supporter I would take heart from the fact that the opposition had the lion's share of possession, won most of the competing situations and still managed to win the game.

    As a Connacht supporter I'm less enamored. For all the possession how was it that we were so clueless. TOH had said in an interview just prior to the game that Connacht were going to test Munster. But it didn't happen like that.

    Possession was there but no ideas. When Wooten came on things improved. I just got the impression that previous to his introduction the back 3 were always in defensive mode.

    Can't put my finger on why that was the case. You had to think that Connacht knew they had to release their back 3. And when they had the possession how did this not happen. Was it that Blade simply pushed the ball to the big lads and didn't make any use of the speed in behind him.

    I tend to think so. I believe when Marmion came on the game speeded up a bit and Wooten benefited while Porch, TOH, Healy looked static under Blade

    Just an opinion


  • Options
    #221
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users Posts: 9,995 ✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Question re: the penalty against Aki. The ref said he couldn't play the ball, as he was in the ruck, basically needed another Connacht player to come behind him to pick it up legally. How was what Aki did any different from a player picking and going from a ruck normally?

    He had successfully counter-rucked, which would mean the ruck, as a object so to speak, moved with him. His hind foot was Connacht's new offside line, and the front of him, Munster's. So if he reaches back and picks up, why is that illegal?

    Am I misundertanding the laws completely here?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    aloooof
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,248 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    Question re: the penalty against Aki. The ref said he couldn't play the ball, as he was in the ruck, basically needed another Connacht player to come behind him to pick it up legally. How was what Aki did any different from a player picking and going from a ruck normally?

    Imo, the difference here is the length of time between the carrier releasing / place it and Aki putting his hands on the ball.

    The jackal penalties you see given are typically when the jackaler immediately wins the space and gets hands on the ball before the clear out comes. But Farrell was in the ruck, and Daly had also arrived when Aki starts his counter-ruck. He puts his hands on the ball after that, and a fair bit after DDA had placed it.

    I thought it was a pretty obvious pen, tbh.


  • Options
    #223
    Dubinusa
    Registered Users Posts: 8,195 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    What a match. Great stuff. Disappointing for Connacht as they were so good in stages. Of course, you gotta score, but!!
    For Munster, I thought JOD was sharp and the most influential forward. Cronin did the business too. Surely Farrell needs to have a gander at him. But the locks were not at the races. Combes was also good. Why don't they throw to him at the line out?

    I thought Dillane was immense throughout and Thornbury too. Oliver was poor, imo. I think the occasion got to him. Couple of brain dead penalties. Boyle was ok and I thought he could have made a better effort for Haley's try.

    Fantastic performance by both sides. Munster to stay in it whilst being hammered at the beginning and Munster for working back into it. Ref was good too!

    Bundee was sensational except for the penalty at the ruck. His yellow was very harsh, I thought.


  • Options
    #224
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,776 ✭✭✭✭phog


    Poor enough fare from Munster, especially our lineouts, I know Connacht targetted them to try stop our maul before we got to form one but we needed to bring some change to it.

    On Bundee's YC, a one handed slap on the ball to the ground is making the ref's decision easy, saying Casey was never going to catch it is irrelevant. Listen to Barnes when he refs, if you go to intercept use two hands if you want to avoid a card for a knockon.

    In a way this game might have suited JJ better. Overall, I think we did enough to win but we need some improvements if we are to have any hope of winning the final.


  • Options
    #225
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,021 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    aloooof wrote: »
    Imo, the difference here is the length of time between the carrier releasing / place it and Aki putting his hands on the ball.

    The jackal penalties you see given are typically when the jackaler immediately wins the space and gets hands on the ball before the clear out comes. But Farrell was in the ruck, and Daly had also arrived when Aki starts his counter-ruck. He puts his hands on the ball after that, and a fair bit after DDA had placed it.

    I thought it was a pretty obvious pen, tbh.

    Yeah thought it was definitely a penalty. He could have tried to ruck it backwards given the access he had, or else Connacht needed 2-3 more bodies to pile in and make it clear they'd won possession.


Advertisement